Which browser to use?

[MattTheMayor]

Would go for chrome for my new pc, but I heard it's really resource-hungry. Tried Waterfox, really good. Any suggestions?

[Hazy125]

Simple answer, just use Chrome. It will save you stress in the long run, even though it uses a bazillion gigs of RAM

[kameshss]

Chrome is simple to use! It's fast!

 

If not Firefox!

[mikeyd85]

+1 for Chrome. It's a resource hog, but we all have enough resources I'm guessing.

[TheGamingBarrel]

Chrome if you dont care about your resources or being able to easily search with multiple engines or websites, if you want those things go firefox/firefox dev edition/ waterfox

[Jgeorge610]

Apple safari is blazing fast and uses minimum resources, worth checking out. 

[olbaze]

Chrome is "resource hungry" because those resources are used for crazy levels of stability and security. However, Chrome also allows you to easily diagnose where your memory is used, which makes fixing it easy.

 

A lot of complaints about Chrome using tons of RAM come from people who have dozens or hundreds of tabs open, not to speak of multiple resource-heavy sites (video streaming). A lot of these cases can easily be fixed with a few extensions or healthier browsing habits,such as using bookmarks instead of opening a dozen sites on startup or closing tabs that you're done  with.

[Opcode]

Chrome (w/ Disconnect)

[GoodBytes]

As you said. Chrome is very resource hungry, and CPU too. Chrome purposefully prevents the CPU to go to sleep just to get that bit of extra performance over Firefox, making your computer warmer, and if it is a mobile computer eat your battery life.

In addition, as per the privacy policy of Chrome, anything you visit, even in Private mode, is all sent to Google and linked to you via any Google account you use to login with the web browser, and tracked you for targeted ads, and resale of information.

Firefox might not be the fastest web browser in the world, but at least it is a fair. It consumes much less memory, allows the CPU to sleep saving power, and reduce system heat and noise, works great on slower systems, and gives you full privacy. Even when you search with the search bar, the deal it has now with Yahoo, (Baidu if you are in China), says that either search engine will also not track you when used with Firefox.

Assuming you have the latest version of Flash, and you install popular quality addons, Firefox will get you a fairly solid experience.

Speed isn't everything.

So in your case, I believe that Firefox is the best solution.

[flibberdipper]

Firefox FTW.

[IP man]

I like chrome because its clean,fast and simple looking.

 

Use chrome

[Opcode]

As you said. Chrome is very resource hungry, and CPU too. Chrome purposefully prevents the CPU to go to sleep just to get that bit of extra performance over Firefox, making your computer warmer, and if it is a mobile computer eat your battery life.

That was patched after Google was called out on it.

 

In addition, as per the privacy policy of Chrome, anything you visit, even in Private mode, is all sent to Google and linked to you via any Google account you use to login with the web browser, and tracked you for targeted ads, and resale of information.

Chrome doesn't send any statistics unless you opt-in for enhancing your browsing experience. Google advertisements I believe have their own way of collecting data. Surf Newegg a lot even in Firefox and you'll see Newegg ad's all over YouTube per example.

 

Firefox might not be the fastest web browser in the world, but at least it is a fair. It consumes much less memory, allows the CPU to sleep saving power, and reduce system heat and noise, works great on slower systems, and gives you full privacy. Even when you search with the search bar, the deal it has now with Yahoo, (Baidu if you are in China), says that either search engine will also not track you when used with Firefox.

While consuming less memory is true but that's only because of Firefox running everything inside a single process. Once one tab crashes the entire browser will go down. It's a pretty unstable way of handling browsing compared to Chromium's per process approach (why it consumes so much ram on top of being 64-bit native). As said above once Chrome was found of abusing high resolution timers they removed it. So your CPU should be able to sleep now if your browser is idle. The one thing I can agree to completely is Firefox is much smoother on old hardware. If you run a single core system Firefox will be a hell of a lot smoother experience than a modern browser like Chrome. That being because of Firefox's single process design. Single core machines aren't optimal at executing multiple threads.

 

Assuming you have the latest version of Flash, and you install popular quality addons, Firefox will get you a fairly solid experience.

Speed isn't everything.

So in your case, I believe that Firefox is the best solution.

To most users I think speed is one of the primary keys of a web browsers. Chrome offers speed along with better security than a lot of the competition (Firefox). Firefox while still being a solid browser is just generations old and has been built upon the same code base for years now. It needs a major overhaul and rewrite instead of fixes and UI improvements. Which if you ask me even it's UI looks hideous with the generic icons that they use.

[GoodBytes]

That was patched after Google was called out on it.

Not patched. Still happening. Google said that will look into it. If they fix it, Chrome will be similar speed to Firefox. They wont' let that happen.

Chrome doesn't send any statistics unless you opt-in for enhancing your browsing experience. Google advertisements I believe have their own way of collecting data. Surf Newegg a lot even in Firefox and you'll see Newegg ad's all over YouTube per example.

Please read the license agreement in full, and the hidden privacy policy of Chrome. I did.

While consuming less memory is true but that's only because of Firefox running everything inside a single process. Once one tab crashes the entire browser will go down. It's a pretty unstable way of handling browsing compared to Chromium's per process approach (why it consumes so much ram on top of being 64-bit native).

How about instead of doing a silly work around of 6000 processes, they fix these crashes. Firefox is hard at work in fixing these, and has a entire report system, not to mention recovery. When it crashes, you can report the problem, and the crash log will be sent to Mozilla for fixing.

Assuing you are unlucky and it does crash, when you open Firefox again, you are EXACTLY were you left off.

As said above once Chrome was found of abusing high resolution timers they removed it. So your CPU should be able to sleep now if your browser is idle. The one thing I can agree to completely is Firefox is much smoother on old hardware. If you run a single core system Firefox will be a hell of a lot smoother experience than a modern browser like Chrome. That being because of Firefox's single process design. Single core machines aren't optimal at executing multiple threads.

I don't think you know how multi-core CPUs work, and what threads are. You should read up them.

Firefox is multi-threaded instead of multi-processed. multi-thread is far harder to do, especially when you are trying to sync things.

There are several full university courses on multi-core programming for a reason. Check those out at university if you don't mind the hard challenge they provide. Great electives for knowledge. Note that these are programming courses not theory.

As for the rest about smoother because it is a single thread on a single processor.. that is incorrect, sorry.

well first of all Firefox has it's engine evolve and changed over the years. They changed their java-script engine and did massive changes to the original engine. Keep in mind that making a new engine is not a peace of cake... see Microsoft with IE. Despite multiple attempts, it is the slowest web browser, however, in IE defense, it is the most responsive web browser by massive long shot. Scrolling is above Apple iOS smooth, zooming, the same. Touch and high-DPI experience is as you would expect, perfect, nothing else to say. If Microsoft got something right, is the experience. This is probably due to tat the latest IE engine was designed with a great focus on low powered mobile devices like their Windows Phones and low powered touch based computers like tablets. In result, if you do benchmarks, in fact you can do them yourself as the margin is so significant over Chorme, and also Firefox it not even funny: you have the most battery life.

Honestly, if Microsoft improves it's downloader (speed wise) optimize more it's engine for a bit more performance including java-script, and provide support for add-ons, I will switch in a heart beat, due to this great experience you get with it. It already has syncing abilities with OneDrive.

[KingKeith55]

Id reccomend google ultron, its a newer in-dev browser made by google that NASA is using.

 

http://ultronbrowser.info/

[Opcode]

Not patched. Still happening. Google said that will look into it. If they fix it, Chrome will be similar speed to Firefox. They wont' let that happen.

It was patched due to the complaints of unfair tactics. It stirred a lot of commotion in the media so they had no choice but to.

 

Please read the license agreement in full, and the hidden privacy policy of Chrome. I did.

The license agree has to touch base with everything that the browser has to offer. If you opt-in at using the enhanced search then they have to have an agreement in place for it. This way you can't say I didn't know ahead of time.

 

How about instead of doing a silly work around of 6000 processes, they fix these crashes. Firefox is hard at work in fixing these, and has a entire report system, not to mention recovery. When it crashes, you can report the problem, and the crash log will be sent to Mozilla for fixing.

Assuing you are unlucky and it does crash, when you open Firefox again, you are EXACTLY were you left off.

I've never really had a crash with Chrome in the many years of using it. Maybe I can recall once or twice, but other than that the during a crash the conflicting tab goes down which can be restarted easily without conflicting or losing any other tabs current state. Most browsers do store their current state if you so choose to let it. Tho the problem with Firefox crashing is once it does go down you have to reload the entire browser along with every pages content. If you're a heavy tab user a single crash can cost you minutes of rebooting the browser and getting back to where you were. Which in turn is quite problematic. Firefox's code base has been the same for so long now that they really need to reinvent themselves.

 

I don't think you know how multi-core CPUs work, and what threads are. You should read up them.

Firefox is multi-threaded instead of multi-processed. multi-thread is far harder to do, especially when you are trying to sync things.

There are several full university courses on multi-core programming for a reason. Check those out at university if you don't mind the hard challenge they provide. Great electives for knowledge. Note that these are programming courses not theory.

For someone who codes game servers capable of handling thousands of online concurrent users I would hope to know the difference. Chrome uses a per process approach which spurts out a new child process (and thread) for each tab. Firefox instead spawns a new internal thread within the same process (which is much faster). Tho the new thread still relies heavily on the main thread as it's backbone. Threading really isn't hard at all most people who still bring up that complaint is just a newbie in the area of programming. Tho keep in mind spawning even internal threads isn't optimal for a older machine. Try writing a network base capable of handling 1500 concurrent users with each socket having its own dedicated thread. It's simply not going to happen. This is one reason why FPS games like Battlefield have always been limited to such a small number of users per round. You would need to use something along the lines of Berkeley sockets in an async state (one thread). Which is terrible for a FPS as there's tons of underlying issues with a server setup like that (I won't go into detail). Tho needless to say Chromium's per process approach is horrendous on a single core machine. Firefox runs everything inside a single process which is far faster at initial handling. Like said a prime example would be opening a new tab. It will be much faster on Firefox with a simple CreateThread() instead of creating an entirely new child process (allocating its own resources etc).

 

As for the rest about smoother because it is a single thread on a single processor.. that is incorrect, sorry.

I would like at least an in depth analysis as to why you may think so other than you're wrong.

 

well first of all Firefox has it's engine evolve and changed over the years. They changed their java-script engine and did massive changes to the original engine. Keep in mind that making a new engine is not a peace of cake... see Microsoft with IE. Despite multiple attempts, it is the slowest web browser, however, in IE defense, it is the most responsive web browser by massive long shot. Scrolling is above Apple iOS smooth, zooming, the same. Touch and high-DPI experience is as you would expect, perfect, nothing else to say. If Microsoft got something right, is the experience. This is probably due to tat the latest IE engine was designed with a great focus on low powered mobile devices like their Windows Phones and low powered touch based computers like tablets. In result, if you do benchmarks, in fact you can do them yourself as the margin is so significant over Chorme, and also Firefox it not even funny: you have the most battery life.

Honestly, if Microsoft improves it's downloader (speed wise) optimize more it's engine for a bit more performance including java-script, and provide support for add-ons, I will switch in a heart beat, due to this great experience you get with it. It already has syncing abilities with OneDrive.

They still need to adapt with the times in order to remain competitive. If we used IE as a prime example. Look how crappy it use to be back in its version 6 stages. Tho if you did a side by side comparison right now IE is the safest and fastest browser available currently. Mozilla seems to of taken a back seat and just rolls out little improvements here and there on top of their existing code base. They certainly aren't as active as they use to be. Meanwhile other browsers are making monumental advances in performance and security. To be honest I would recommend IE over Firefox this day in age to the average consumer who just wants to surf the web. Hell IE is even faster and more secure than Chrome. Tho we all have our little choice of what we like to use (besides IE isn't available on Linux). In short Firefox went from the open browser that gave everyone what they wanted at the time to a stick in the mud. Even to the point where Linux distributions are planning on initially removing it from their distribution. They really need to lace up their boots and do something.

[Akolyte]

I used Chrome till I got an HP stream.  Chrome was too much, 2GB RAM and Chrome don't like each other.  2GB RAM and Firefox are fine. 

[GoodBytes]

It was patched due to the complaints of unfair tactics. It stirred a lot of commotion in the media so they had no choice but to.

Fair enough, IF you are willing to use the latest beta version for Chrome it is fixed. I just checked.

The license agree has to touch base with everything that the browser has to offer. If you opt-in at using the enhanced search then they have to have an agreement in place for it. This way you can't say I didn't know ahead of time.

 

Not from my understanding.

I've never really had a crash with Chrome in the many years of using it. Maybe I can recall once or twice, but other than that the during a crash the conflicting tab goes down which can be restarted easily without conflicting or losing any other tabs current state. Most browsers do store their current state if you so choose to let it. Tho the problem with Firefox crashing is once it does go down you have to reload the entire browser along with every pages content. If you're a heavy tab user a single crash can cost you minutes of rebooting the browser and getting back to where you were. Which in turn is quite problematic. Firefox's code base has been the same for so long now that they really need to reinvent themselves.

Same here. Crashes are extremely rare. If anything it is Flash that crashes (but it got better over the years), and a simple page reload always fixed it (as the plug-in reloads)

However, that is not true what you say. When Firefox crashes, not all tabs are loaded. Only the currently viewed one. Once you click on the tab it loads it.

For someone who codes game servers capable of handling thousands of online concurrent users I would hope to know the difference. Chrome uses a per process approach which spurts out a new child process (and thread) for each tab. Firefox instead spawns a new internal thread within the same process (which is much faster). Tho the new thread still relies heavily on the main thread as it's backbone.

Yup, exactly what I said.

Tho keep in mind spawning even internal threads isn't optimal for a older machine.

And that is why Chrome is so amazing with old slow computers.. wait it's not.

[GloriousPain]

Love how when a browser is lightweight and crashes it's like "dammit"... Chrome uses extra RAM that you have lieing around to prevent crashes and everyone bitches if anything Chrome is just properly optimized 

[Opcode]

Fair enough, IF you are willing to use the latest beta version for Chrome it is fixed. I just checked.

Not from my understanding.

Same here. Crashes are extremely rare. If anything it is Flash that crashes (but it got better over the years), and a simple page reload always fixed it (as the plug-in reloads)

However, that is not true what you say. When Firefox crashes, not all tabs are loaded. Only the currently viewed one. Once you click on the tab it loads it.

Yup, exactly what I said.

And that is why Chrome is so amazing with old slow computers.. wait it's not.

Even if it browser doesn't reload all of the pages initially the end user still has to wait for the page to reload during navigation to that tab after a crash (time consuming). I don't think you grasped my explanation between the two and how they differ. I can't go into any more detail without adding more complicated stuff such as the task scheduler to the subject at hand. Lastly, I never said Chrome was good on old computers I said and I quote.

 

The one thing I can agree to completely is Firefox is much smoother on old hardware. If you run a single core system Firefox will be a hell of a lot smoother experience than a modern browser like Chrome.

 

Single process design allows for more CPU time. As to where Chrome child processes probably only get scheduled whenever they ask for it (active).

 

Love how when a browser is lightweight and crashes it's like "dammit"... Chrome uses extra RAM that you have lieing around to prevent crashes and everyone bitches if anything Chrome is just properly optimized 

I think the underlying problem with Chrome's massive memory usage is people never complained about it until the 64-bit variant launched. The fact that the browser is 64-bit now it's naturally going to consume more resources out of the gate due to a change in data type sizing. An integer to a 32-bit compiler is only 4 bytes long while an integer to a 64-bit compiler is 8 bytes long. So there are reasonable reasons as to why Chrome consumes so much memory now. Tho I still don't see the major problem. I sit here with 10 tabs open (one is doing folding) and Chrome's only using around 500 MB out of 8 GB. I'd like to see a 32-bit vs 64-bit comparison between Chrome variants to see if in fact the 32-bit version is lighter. Tho as a modern browser it's hard to say most people who use it don't have at least 8 GB of system memory these days.

[typographie]

Memory usage? Maybe that's a consideration if you've got some old PC with 1 or 2 GB, but any modern gaming rig with 8+ GB is not going to care how much RAM Chrome is using. If you've got 50 tabs open, chances are you're actually doing something with your attention focused on Chrome. If you've got 50 tabs open in the background while trying to game, you should be more organized.

[cooperb21]

It all comes down to preference really a million people will tell you one thing and another.

 

Just download firefox, chrome and opera and use them each one for a day then try other for day and find which you found better after 3 days. 

 

Me i ended up using Opera it had less bugs and crashes and issues than Chrome in my personal experience since everyone's is different. 

[olbaze]

 think the underlying problem with Chrome's massive memory usage is people never complained about it until the 64-bit variant launched. The fact that the browser is 64-bit now it's naturally going to consume more resources out of the gate due to a change in data type sizing. An integer to a 32-bit compiler is only 4 bytes long while an integer to a 64-bit compiler is 8 bytes long. So there are reasonable reasons as to why Chrome consumes so much memory now. Tho I still don't see the major problem. I sit here with 10 tabs open (one is doing folding) and Chrome's only using around 500 MB out of 8 GB. I'd like to see a 32-bit vs 64-bit comparison between Chrome variants to see if in fact the 32-bit version is lighter. Tho as a modern browser it's hard to say most people who use it don't have at least 8 GB of system memory these days.

A lot of Chrome's memory is also used up by extensions, which is something that a lot of people don't realize. I'm a relatively light user of extensions (got 14 of them) and they're currently using 364mb of ram. That's almost as much as the whole of FF.

 

Memory usage? Maybe that's a consideration if you've got some old PC with 1 or 2 GB, but any modern gaming rig with 8+ GB is not going to care how much RAM Chrome is using.

 Think about multitasking. I've found myself running out of RAM on my PC (6gb) when doing light multitasking (gaming, watching a stream and browsing the internet). And since the internet was open because of the game, I was essentially only doing two things at the same time.

 

Another valid argument is using Chrome on a laptop or a tablet, which often come with 1-4gb of ram. You have to remember that not everyone is using a hefty gaming machine to do their browsing and that should never be the expectation.

[cooperb21]

Most browsers use little memory the only reason its high is everyone use's adblock with is 90% of memory.

[Wind]

if you think Waterfox is good, just use it. i'm using Waterfox too. since the new update, it using less RAM, which is good for a guy who only have 3,6GB of RAM